Archaeological Desk-based Assessment of Land at Richard Lane, Tideswell, Derbyshire

ArcHeritage Report 2016/25 July 2016 Land at Richard Lane, Tideswell, Derbyshire: Desk-based Assessment

### Key Project Information

| Project Name | Richard Lane, Tideswell | |-----------------------|-------------------------| | Report Title | Land at Richard Lane, Tideswell, Derbyshire: Desk-based assessment | | Report status | Draft for comment | | ArchHeritage Project No. | 620 | | Type of Project | Desk-based Assessment | | Client | Michael Green Planning Services | | NGR | SK 15178 75023 | | Author | Mark Stenton | | Illustrations | Mark Stenton | | Editor | Glyn Davies | | Report Number and Date| 2016/25 14.07.2016 | | Version and filename | V1 Richard Lane, Tidewell v1 |

**Copyright Declaration:** ArcHeritage give permission for the material presented within this report to be used by the archives/repository with which it is deposited, in perpetuity, although ArcHeritage retains the right to be identified as the author of all project documentation and reports, as specified in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (chapter IV, section 79). The permission will allow the repository to reproduce material, including for use by third parties, with the copyright owner suitably acknowledged.

**Disclaimer:** This Report has been prepared solely for the person/party which commissioned it and for the specifically titled project or named part thereof referred to in the Report. The Report should not be relied upon or used for any other project by the commissioning person/party without first obtaining independent verification as to its suitability for such other project, and obtaining the prior written approval of York Archaeological Trust for Excavation and Research Limited ("YAT") (trading as ArchHeritage). YAT accepts no responsibility or liability for the consequences of this Report being relied upon or used for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was specifically commissioned. Nobody is entitled to rely upon this Report other than the person/party which commissioned it. YAT accepts no responsibility or liability for any use of or reliance upon this Report by anybody other than the commissioning person/party.

© 2016 York Archaeological Trust for Excavation and Research Limited. Registered Office: 47 Aldwark, York YO1 7BX. A Company Limited by Guarantee. Registered in England No. 1430801. A Registered Charity in England & Wales (No. 09060) and Scotland (No. SCO42846) CONTENTS

Non-technical Summary ........................................................................................................ iii

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1

2 LOCATION, GEOLOGY & TOPOGRAPHY .................................................................... 1

3 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 1 3.1 Aims ......................................................................................................................... 1 3.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................. 1

4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ............................................. 3 4.1 Designated assets ..................................................................................................... 3 4.2 Undated .................................................................................................................... 4 4.3 Prehistoric and Roman ............................................................................................ 4 4.4 Medieval .................................................................................................................. 4 4.5 Sixteenth to eighteenth centuries ............................................................................ 4 4.6 Nineteenth century .................................................................................................. 5 4.7 Modern .................................................................................................................... 5

5 WALKOVER SURVEY .................................................................................................. 6

6 ASSESSMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL .................................................. 7

7 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON DESIGNATED ASSETS/CONSERVATION AREA ............. 7

8 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 8

9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... 8

10 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 9

APPENDIX 1: GAZETTEER OF RECORDED HERITAGE ASSETS ................................. 21 Plates

Plate 1: Site entrance, looking south from Richard Lane Plate 2: Site entrance, looking north towards Richard Lane Plate 3: Extent of ground disturbance, western site boundary Plate 4: Extent of ground disturbance, western site boundary Plate 5: Extent of ground disturbance, south-west site boundary Plate 6: Dry stone wall to east of site entrance Plate 7: Aggregate storage areas, looking north Plate 8: Aggregate storage areas, looking north-east Plate 9: Dry stone wall, southern site boundary, looking west Plate 10: Raised yard, south-east corner of Site, looking north Plate 11: Raised ground levels, north-east site boundary Plate 12: Raised ground levels, north-east site boundary Plate 13: Materials stacks, main yard Plate 14: Main buildings, looking north-east Plate 15: Main buildings, looking south-west Plate 16: Building, north-east corner of Site Plate 17: Dump, looking west Plate 18: Dump, looking south-east Plate 19: Extent of ground disturbance on west side of dump Plate 20: Slope on north side of dump, looking south-east

Figures

Figure 1: Site location map Figure 2: Heritage assets Figure 3: 1821 Tideswell enclosure map and 1844 Tideswell tithe map Figure 4: 1852 Tideswell township map and 1883 OS map Figure 5: 1898 and 1955 OS maps Figure 6: 1972 and 2012 OS maps NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

This report presents the results of a desk-based assessment of land at Richard Lane, Tideswell, Derbyshire. The report was commissioned from ArcHeritage by Michael Green Planning Services on behalf of their client.

Research for the desk-based assessment indicates that the Site was in agricultural use from the medieval period until the late 20th century. The majority of the land appears to have been used to graze livestock throughout this period, although four buildings associated with South Farm stood within the Site during the mid- to late 20th century.

Extensive ground disturbance and landscaping works associated with the subsequent development of the M. Markovitz Ltd builders’ yard appear to have removed all topsoil, subsoil and the upper layers of bedrock from the majority of the Site. Along the eastern boundary, ground levels have been raised up to create a yard approximately 3m - 4m above the height of the natural ground surface to the east. The depth of the foundations required for the construction of the raised yard is likely to have required excavation to bedrock prior to the deposition of made ground. Throughout the Site, the archaeological potential for all periods is therefore considered to be negligible.

The proposed development will not have a visual or setting impact on any designated heritage assets or on the Tideswell Conservation Area. With appropriate screening and sympathetic design and materials, the proposed development could have a beneficial effect on the setting of the Conservation Area. 1 INTRODUCTION

This report is a desk-based assessment of land at Richard Lane, Tideswell, Derbyshire (‘the Site’). The report assesses the Site’s archaeological and historical background, archaeological potential and significance; and the impact of the proposed development on the cultural heritage resource within the Site. The report was commissioned from ArcHeritage by Michael Green Planning Services on behalf of their client.

The assessment comprised documentary and cartographic research and a site visit and was undertaken in line with guidance from the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA 2014) and industry good practice.

2 LOCATION, GEOLOGY & TOPOGRAPHY

The Site (centred on NGR SK 15178 75023) is located on the south side of Tideswell, Derbyshire, approximately 9km to the north-east of Buxton (Figure 1). The Site is bounded by Richard Lane at the east and north-west; by fields at the south and west; and by a playground at the north.

The underlying geology is Bee Low Limestone Formation (BGS). A search of BGS borehole records reveals that no boreholes have been sunk within the Site or in its immediate vicinity.

The Site is occupied by the premises of M. Markovitz Ltd, Builders’ and Plumbers’ Merchants. Buildings and storage areas are located within the Site, with access routes and yard surfaces being concrete. Ground levels within the Site slopes steeply from west to east. Extensive landscaping works have taken place, with the western part of the Site being excavated to bedrock in order to create a level yard area, while the eastern part of the Site has been raised artificially to a height of approximately 3m - 4m above the natural ground level.

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Aims

The general aim of the desk-based assessment was to determine the nature of the cultural heritage resource within the Site. This was achieved by collating existing archaeological and historic information relating to the proposed development area and its immediate environs. The desk-based research was undertaken in line with the standards and guidance produced by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA 2014).

3.2 Methodology

3.2.1 Desk-based research

Information on recorded heritage assets within a 1km radius of the Site was obtained from the Derbyshire Historic Environment Record (HER). The following sources were also consulted:

- Derbyshire Record Office and Local Studies Service (DRO);
- Archaeology Data Service (ADS);
- Heritage Gateway online;
- National Heritage List for England (NHLFE);
- British Geological Survey online (BGS); 3.2.2 Walkover survey

A walkover survey was undertaken to establish the current condition of the site and identify any built or earthwork cultural heritage features, and any areas of previous disturbance that may have disturbed buried deposits.

3.2.3 Assessment criteria

The term ‘heritage assets’ covers a wide variety of features including: buildings; standing, buried and submerged archaeological remains, sites and landscapes; and parks and gardens, whether designated or not. Heritage assets hold meaning for society over and above functional utility. The significance of a heritage asset relates to its archaeological, architectural, artistic and historic interest. It is possible to ascertain archaeological significance based on period, rarity, documentation, group value, vulnerability and diversity (see Table 1).

| Value | Archaeological Assets | Built Heritage | |---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | International | World Heritage Sites (including nominated sites). Assets of acknowledged international importance. Assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged international research objectives. | Structures inscribed as of international importance as World Heritage Sites. Other buildings of recognised international importance. | | National | Scheduled Monuments (including proposed). Undesignated assets of schedulable quality and importance. Assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged national research objectives. | Scheduled Monuments with standing remains (including proposed). Grade I and II\* Listed Buildings. Other Listed Buildings that can be shown to have exceptional qualities in their fabric or historical associations not adequately reflected in the listing grade. Conservation Areas containing very important buildings. Undesignated structures of clear national importance. | | Regional | Designated or undesignated assets that contribute to regional research objectives. | Grade II Listed Buildings. Historic (unlisted) buildings that can be shown to have exceptional qualities in their fabric or historical associations. Conservation Areas containing buildings that contribute significantly to its historic character. Historic Townscape or built-up areas with important historic integrity in their buildings, or built settings (e.g. including street furniture and other structures). |

### Value

| Value | Archaeological Assets | Built Heritage | |-------|-----------------------|----------------| | Local | Designated and undesignated assets of local importance. Assets compromised by poor preservation and/or poor survival of contextual associations. Assets of limited value, but with potential to contribute to local research objectives. | 'Locally Listed' buildings. Historic (unlisted) buildings of modest quality in their fabric or historical association. Historic Townscape or built-up areas of limited historic integrity in their buildings, or built settings (e.g. including street furniture and other structures). | | Negligible | Assets with very little or no surviving archaeological interest. | Buildings of no architectural or historical note. Buildings of an intrusive character. | | Unknown | The importance of the resource has not been ascertained. | Buildings of some hidden (i.e. inaccessible) potential for historic significance. |

The assessment of the potential for archaeological remains to be present is based on known cultural heritage assets in the vicinity, the nature of current and historic land-use, and available information on the nature and condition of sub-surface deposits. A **low** potential reflects a below-average likelihood for the preservation of remains based on known parameters; **moderate** represents an average potential; and **high** would reflect an above-average potential for the survival of archaeology. A **negligible** potential means that no significant archaeological remains are present; this is only used where evaluation has indicated a lack of archaeological remains, or where it is known that substantial sub-surface disturbance has occurred (such as deep basements or quarrying) which will have removed any earlier remains. If there is insufficient evidence on which to make a judgement the potential is recorded as **unknown**.

No previous archaeological investigations have been undertaken within the proposed development area and no geotechnical data was available at the time of writing, therefore the knowledge of below-ground conditions is currently poor.

### 4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

This section presents a summary of the archaeological and historical background of the Site and its surrounding area. A gazetteer of known heritage assets within 1km of the Site has been collated from local and national databases and is presented in Appendix 1. The locations of the assets are shown on Figure 2. Heritage asset numbers mentioned in the text refer to the gazetteer.

#### 4.1 Designated assets

All cultural heritage designations were checked for the 1km search area, including Scheduled Monuments (SMs), Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Registered Parks and Gardens and Registered Battlefields.

No Scheduled Monuments are recorded within the site or the 1km search area.

No listed buildings are recorded within the Site. One Grade I and 25 Grade II listed buildings are recorded within the 1km search area. None of these designated heritage assets are visible from the Site and there will not be any visual or setting impacts on these features from the proposed development. For these reasons, the listed buildings are included in the gazetteer of heritage assets but are not discussed in the text.

The Site is located within the Peak District National Park, but is not situated within the Tideswell Conservation Area. There are no Registered Battlefields within the Site or the 1km search area.

4.2 Undated The HER records five undated heritage assets within the 1km search area: earthwork banks (Asset 43); chert implements (Asset 46); a possible linear bank and ditch (Asset 50); an area of possible trial quarrying (Asset 51); and possible quarrying (Asset 52).

4.3 Prehistoric and Roman The HER does not record any prehistoric or Roman heritage assets within the Site.

Four prehistoric heritage assets are recorded in the 1km search area: a possible barrow on Great Low (Asset 41); a possible horseshoe enclosure (Asset 44); a possible barrow on Nay Low (Asset 47); and a perforated basalt axe-hammer (Asset 48). The latter was found approximately 125m to the west of the Site in 1844.

The HER does not record any Roman heritage assets within the 1km search area.

4.4 Medieval The HER does not record any medieval heritage assets within the Site or the 1km search area. Early medieval activity in the area is suggested by the Old English place-name elements ‘Tidi’ and ‘waella’, meaning ‘Tidi’s Stream’ (Stroud 2001, 4). The location of early medieval settlement at Tideswell has not been identified (Stroud 2001, 19).

During the later medieval period, Tideswell was situated in the southern part of the Royal Forest of the Peak (Stroud 2001, 4). The forest appears to have been largely treeless, with ‘open arable fields’ along much of its southern fringe (Stroud 2001, 5). The Site may therefore have been in agricultural use during the medieval period. From ‘at least the 14th century, the emphasis moved towards livestock, particularly sheep’ (Stroud 2001, 6) and the Site may therefore have used to graze animals for the wool trade.

Four medieval heritage assets are recorded in the 1km search area: the remains of two cruck barns (Assets 10 and 29); the Church of St. John the Baptist (Asset 18); the site of the Summer Cross (Asset 34); and the remains of the Butterton Cross (Asset 45).

4.5 Sixteenth to eighteenth centuries The HER does not record any early post-medieval heritage asset within the Site.

Documentary evidence shows that various fields in the Tideswell area were being enclosed and made available to rent (Stroud 2001, 7). It is not clear if any of the privately-enclosed plots were located within the Site. In 1771, Young reported ‘very large herds of cows, fattening’ in the fields at Tideswell (quoted in Stroud 2001, 8) and it is possible that the Site was used for the grazing of cattle at that date. In 1789, Pilkington reported that Tideswell cattle were bred for the markets at both Sheffield and Manchester (Stroud 2001, 8). Tideswell was shown on Peter Perez Burdett’s 1797 map of Derbyshire, but no features were shown within the Site itself. Due to the map’s scale, Burdett did not indicate land use and any field boundaries that were present within the Site would therefore simply have been omitted.

The HER records 21 early post-medieval heritage assets within the 1km search area: a silver penny, possibly of Henry VIII (Asset 1); Lawson Cottage and Lodge (Asset 35); Red Butts Lead Mine (Asset 40); a pinfold (Asset 42); and Meadow Farm (Asset 49). The remaining 16 post-medieval heritage assets within the 1km search area are listed buildings.

4.6 Nineteenth century

The HER does not record any 19th-century heritage assets within the Site.

The Site was shown as fields on the 1821 Tideswell enclosure map (Figure 3). Richard Lane was labelled ‘Pinfold Lane’ at that date. Other than field boundaries, no features were shown within the Site at that date. While the plots possessed the regular, linear boundaries typical of the Parliamentary enclosure process, only the southernmost field was given an enclosure plot number. This suggests that the Site’s remaining fields may have been enclosed privately prior to the 1821 enclosure award.

No changes were shown within the Site on the 1844 Tideswell tithe map (Figure 3) or the 1852 Tideswell township map (Figure 4) and a footpath was the only additional feature marked within the Site on the 1883 Ordnance Survey map (Figure 4). The Site remained unchanged on the 1898 Ordnance Survey map (Figure 5).

The HER records 17 19th-century heritage assets within the 1km search area: a George IV lead seal (Asset 12); a Primitive Methodist Chapel (Asset 21); two congregational chapels (Assets 26 and 31); the Summer Cross Factory (Asset 35); a Wesleyan Methodist Chapel (Asset 36); and a Roman Catholic Chapel (Asset 39). The remaining 10 heritage assets within the 1km search area are listed buildings.

4.7 Modern

The HER does not record any modern heritage assets within the Site. One modern heritage asset is recorded in the 1km search area: Bishop Purseglove Church of England School (Asset 2).

No changes were shown within the Site on the 1922 or 1955 Ordnance Survey maps (Figure 5). South View Farm had been constructed by the time of the 1972 Ordnance Survey map (Figure 6). While several of the farm buildings were situated immediately to the east of the Site, four buildings stood within the Site itself. A large, rectangular building and a large, open-sided barn were shown along the eastern boundary, while two smaller buildings stood along the south boundary. The latter were accessible via a track at the Site’s south-east corner. None of the farm buildings were labelled and, with the exception of the barn, their functions are unclear. The 19th-century footpath across the Site remained extant in 1972 and continued to be shown on the 1975 OS map. No further changes were shown within the Site at the latter date.

The M. Markovitz Ltd builders’ yard had been constructed by 1994 (http://pam.peakdistrict.gov.uk/WED0394102). None of the South Farm buildings survived by the time of a 2003 aerial photograph (Google Earth). Two large buildings had been constructed in the central part of the Site, while a further building was shown at the north-east corner and several storage areas were shown within the yard. An access road had been constructed into the Site from Richard Lane by that date. No substantive changes were shown within the Site on a 2007 aerial photograph (Google Earth).

5 WALKOVER SURVEY

A walkover survey was undertaken by Mark Stenton of ArcHeritage on 7th July 2016. Weather conditions were dry, with visibility good.

An access road leads into the Site from Richard Lane at the north (Plates 1 and 2). The road is bounded by the rear walls of 20th-century garages at the left and by gabion walls and a dry stone wall at the right. The latter does not mark a historic field boundary and appears to have been constructed to demarcate the site boundary of the M. Markovitz Ltd builders’ yard.

Prior to the development of the builders’ yard, ground level within the Site sloped steeply down from west to east. The Site has been landscaped extensively and the western half is now level. The extent of the ground disturbance associated with the Site’s development is evident along the western boundary, where dry stone walls, relatively shallow layers of top- and subsoil and exposed bedrock are visible in the section (Plates 3, 4 and 5). Due to the natural gradient, the extent to which the bedrock has been removed to create the yard varies from a depth of approximately 1m at the north-west to approximately 3m - 4m at the south-west.

From the site entrance, a relatively short section of dry stone wall runs east to the rear of the garages (Plate 6). It is not clear if this is the remnant of a wall that was shown here on historic maps from 1821 or if it is a late 20th-century replacement that was constructed to mark the boundary of the builders’ yard. The dry stone wall is obscured by several concrete walls that project from the northern site boundary to provide open storage areas for various aggregates (Plates 7 and 8).

A dry stone wall along the southern site boundary may be the remnant of the field boundary that was shown at this location on historic maps from 1821 onwards (Plates 9 and 10). It is not clear if this feature demarcates the Site itself or the adjacent field to the south. In places, the wall is damaged and in poor condition. Part of the south-east site boundary is not screened by the mature trees found elsewhere along the perimeters. However, views into the Site from the fields to the south are restricted to the upper sections of a 4m - 5m concrete and breeze-block platform that was built to create a level yard surface in the Site’s south-east corner (Plate 10). Metal fencing is present along the edge of the raised area. Access to the eastern yard is available via a flight of external, concrete steps that lead up from an adjacent, informal car park approximately 3m – 4m below the level of the yard (Plate 11). To the north of the steps, the raised yard is supported by substantial gabion walls (Plates 11 and 12).

All of the yard areas within the Site are surfaced with concrete. Drainage features indicate the location and extent of utility services in these areas. Due to extensive excavation along the western boundary and substantial levelling within the main yard, the area between the western perimeter and the Site’s principal buildings is level, while the land to the east of the buildings slopes down to the site boundary. Within the yards, various building materials are stored at ground level or on large, metal-framed stacks (Plate 13).

The three buildings within the Site were all in use during the site visit and so were inaccessible. Each of the buildings has a corrugated metal superstructure over breeze-block foundations and none appear to have deep foundations or basement levels. The largest buildings are located in the central part of the yard (Plate 14). The office/trade counter sales building is accessible via a concrete ramp along its west elevation. Due to the sloping ground levels, this building is single-storey at the west and two-storey at the east. To the north, an adjacent building is open internally to the rafters. Access to this building is available from the eastern part of the yard (Plate 15). A smaller, single-storey building is situated at the Site’s north-east corner (Plate 16). A substantial concrete platform has been constructed on this building’s west side.

Along the south-west site boundary, a dump has been created through the excavation of a level surface into the natural slope of the hill (Plates 17 and 18). The extent of the ground disturbance and landscaping works that have taken place in this part of the Site is indicated by the exposed section where the former field and bedrock have been excavated to depths of approximately 3m – 5m (Plate 19) Some of the bedrock that was removed during the creation of the dump has been used as the base for an adjacent access road (Plate 20). This slopes up to the west and runs between the dump and the office/trade counter sales building. Further blocks of removed bedrock have been used to line the edge of the slope.

Each of the South Farm buildings shown on the 1972 and 1975 Ordnance Survey maps has been demolished. With the exception of the degraded dry stone wall along the southern site boundary, no historic features were observed during the site visit.

6 ASSESSMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL

Given the extensive deep ground disturbance across the Site – with all topsoil and a substantial depth of bedrock having been removed – the archaeological potential for all periods in the majority of the Site is negligible.

Along the eastern boundary, ground levels have been raised up to create a yard approximately 3 to 4m above the height of the natural ground surface to the east. It is possible that archaeological remains associated with the mid-20th-century South Farm buildings have been sealed beneath the raised yard along the east and south site boundaries. Any remains that do survive are likely to be low-level, utilitarian features such as footings, foundations, the bases of walls and former floor surfaces. However, given the depth of the foundations required to provide a stable base for the raised yard, it is possible that these parts of the Site were also excavated to bedrock, followed by the deposition of made ground. In that case, the archaeological potential for all periods along the eastern boundary is also considered to be negligible.

The 20th- and early 21st-century buildings within the Site are utilitarian structures and are not considered to be of archaeological, architectural or historic significance. The archaeological potential and significance associated with the Site’s standing buildings is negligible.

7 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON DESIGNATED ASSETS/CONSERVATION AREA

Due to the distance between the Site and the nearest listed buildings, the existing townscape, tree cover and ground levels, the proposed development will not have any visual or setting impacts on any designated heritage assets. The Site is not located within Tideswell Conservation Area. The latter’s southern boundary extends to the Richard Lane/Gordon Road junction, approximately 80m to the north-east of the Site. Due to the existing townscape, tree cover and differences in ground level, the proposed development will not have any visual impacts on views into or out of the Conservation Area and will not have an adverse impact on the setting of the Conservation Area. With appropriate screening and sympathetic design and materials, the proposed development could have a beneficial effect on the setting of the Conservation Area.

8 CONCLUSIONS

Research for the desk-based assessment indicates that the Site was in agricultural use from the medieval period until the late 20th century. The majority of the land appears to have been used to graze livestock throughout this period, although four buildings associated with South Farm stood within the Site during the mid- to late 20th century.

Extensive ground disturbance and landscaping works associated with the subsequent development of the M. Markovitz Ltd builders’ yard appear to have removed all topsoil, subsoil and the upper layers of bedrock from the majority of the Site. Along the eastern boundary, ground levels have been raised up to create a yard approximately 3m - 4m above the height of the natural ground surface to the east. The depth of the foundations required for the construction of the raised yard is likely to have required excavation to bedrock prior to the deposition of made ground. Throughout the Site, the archaeological potential for all periods is therefore considered to be negligible.

The proposed development will not have a visual or setting impact on any designated heritage assets or on the Tideswell Conservation Area. With appropriate screening and sympathetic design and materials, the proposed development could have a beneficial effect on the setting of the Conservation Area.

9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank Nikki Manning of the Derbyshire HER and the staff of the Derbyshire Record Office and Local Studies Service. 10 REFERENCES

Publications

CIfA. 2014. *Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment*. Chartered Institute for Archaeologists: Reading.

M. Markovitz Ltd. 1994. Change of use of land and buildings to Builders’ Merchants. PDNPA Planning Application WED0394102 (http://pam.peakdistrict.gov.uk/WED0394102).

Stroud, G. 2001. Derbyshire Extensive Urban Survey: Tideswell. Unpublished DCC report.

Ullathorne, A. 2003. Heathy Grange Farm, Tideswell. Unpublished PDNPA farm survey.

Documents

1821 Tideswell enclosure award (DRO 4752/1) 1844 Tideswell tithe apportionment (DRO D1494/A/PI/335)

Historic maps

1797 Thomas Burdett map of Derbyshire 1821 Tideswell enclosure map (DRO Q/RI 100) 1842 Ordnance Survey First Series map 1844 Tideswell tithe map (DRO D2360/3/100a) 1852 Tideswell township map (DRO D4752/2-3) 1883 Ordnance Survey map 1898 Ordnance Survey map 1922 Ordnance Survey map 1955 Ordnance Survey map 1972 Ordnance Survey map 1975 Ordnance Survey map 2012 Ordnance Survey map

Aerial photographs

Google Earth Bing Maps www.britainfromabove.org PLATES

Plate 1: Site entrance, looking south from Richard Lane

Plate 2: Site entrance, looking north towards Richard Lane Plate 3: Extent of ground disturbance, western site boundary

Plate 4: Extent of ground disturbance, western site boundary Plate 5: Extent of ground disturbance, south-west site boundary

Plate 6: Dry stone wall to east of site entrance Plate 7: Aggregate storage areas, looking north

Plate 8: Aggregate storage areas, looking north-east Plate 9: Dry stone wall, southern site boundary, looking west

Plate 10: Raised yard, south-east corner of Site, looking north Plate 11: Raised ground levels, north-east site boundary

Plate 12: Raised ground levels, north-east site boundary Plate 13: Materials stacks, main yard

Plate 14: Main buildings, looking north-east Plate 15: Main buildings, looking south-west

Plate 16: Building, north-east corner of Site Plate 17: Dump, looking west

Plate 18: Dump, looking south-east Plate 19: Extent of ground disturbance on west side of dump

Plate 20: Slope on north side of dump, looking south-east FIGURES Figure 1: Site Location Figure 2: Heritage assets

Heritage assets within 1km of Site

Site centred on NGR SK 15178 75023

Heritage assets, Tideswell village

OS data © Crown Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. Licence no. 100018343 Figure 3: 1821 enclosure map and 1844 tithe map Figure 4: 1852 township map and 1883 OS map Figure 5: 1898 and 1955 OS maps Figure 6: 1972 and 2012 OS maps

## APPENDIX 1: GAZETTEER OF RECORDED HERITAGE ASSETS

| Asset no. | Source ID | Name | Summary | NGR | |-----------|-----------|------|---------|-----| | 1 | HER 14139 | Silver penny | Found while excavating for a pond. Shield/long cross penny, possibly of Henry VIII. | SK 1527 7597 | | 2 | HER 14174 | Bishop Purseglove C of E School | Designed by Henry George Widdows, 1933. Retains original windows. | SK 1525 7597 | | 3 | NHLFE 400364 | White Cottage and no.3 Market Square | Grade II listed building. Pair of houses dated 1771. | SK 15112 75934 | | 4 | NHLFE 400368 | Outbuilding attached to and NW of The Flat | Grade II listed building. Mid-19th-century outbuilding. | SK 15113 75895 | | 5 | NHLFE 400367 | The Flat | Grade II listed building. Late 18th-century house. | SK 15120 75893 | | 6 | NHLFE 400363 | The Old College | Grade II listed building. Built c.1830 as a pair of houses. Later a school. | SK 15174 75890 | | 7 | NHLFE 400354 | Eccles Hall, boundary wall and gate piers to SE | Grade II listed building. Built c.1720, with later remodelling. | SK 15215 75879 | | 8 | NHLFE 400365 | The Picture House | Grade II listed building. Built in 1872 as The Oddfellows Hall. | SK 15113 75875 | | 9 | NHLFE 400363 | Premises occupied by High Peak Plastics Ltd | Grade II listed building. Late 19th-century, former Church of England school, now a factory. | SK 15313 75875 | | 10 | NHLFE 400357 | Blake House | Grade II listed building. Blake House dated 1766, with later additions. | SK 5115 7586 | | | HER 14161 | Cruck Barn | Remains of cruck barn, with one exposed cruck. | SK 152 756 | | 11 | NHLFE 400355 | The Vicarage | Grade II listed building. Early 19th-century vicarage with later remodelling. | SK 15188 75855 | | 12 | HER 14163 | Lead seal, Sherwood House | George IV lead seal, 1826. Possibly now in Buxton Museum. | SK 15032 75836 | | 13 | NHLFE 400356 | Outbuildings to SW of The Vicarage | Grade II listed building. Early 19th-century stables and carriage house. | SK 15200 75828 | | 14 | NHLFE 400358 | The Old Grammar School | Grade II listed building. Built in 1742, enlarged in 1824. Probably on site of original 1560 grammar school. | SK 15240 75825 | | 15 | NHLFE 400359 | Building occupied by the County Library Service | Grade II listed building. Late 19th-century public library. | SK 15268 75823 | | 16 | NHLFE 400361 | St. John’s Institute | Grade II listed building. Late 19th-century refashioning of an earlier house. | SK 15261 75818 | | 17 | NHLFE 400347 | George Hotel and outbuildings to E | Grade II listed building. Late 18th-century stables and coaching inn, now a hotel and outbuilding. | SK 15313 75791 | | Asset no. | Source ID | Name | Summary | NGR | |----------|-----------|------|---------|-----| | 18 | NHLFE 400346 HER 14121 | Church of St. John the Baptist | Grade I listed building. ‘One of the finest churches in Derbyshire’. Built in 14th century, restored in 1873. | SK 1526 7578 | | 19 | NHLFE 400345 | Top House and no.5 Church Avenue | Grade II listed building. Late 18th-century pair of houses. | SK 15214 75772 | | 20 | HER 14129 | Hammer stone, Commercial Road | Oval sandstone hammer stone, 4.5" x 3". Now in Buxton Museum. | SK 1536 7577 | | 21 | HER 14170 HER 14171 | Primitive Methodist Chapel and lecture room | Shown on 1883 OS map. Demolished in 1893. New chapel with lecture room on site by 1900. | SK 1516 7575 | | 22 | NHLFE 400344 | No.1 Church Cottage and no.s 2 and 3 Church Avenue | Grade II listed building. Late 17th-century house, now divided into three dwellings. | SK 15214 75750 | | 23 | NHLFE 400372 | House to the W of Church Cottage | Grade II listed building. Mid-18th-century house now converted into two dwellings. | SK 15208 75744 | | 24 | NHLFE 400348 | Premises occupied by Yesterday Antiques | Grade II listed building. Mid-18th-century, former house, now a shop. | SK 15255 75713 | | 25 | NHLFE 400349 | Premises occupied by Medeira House restaurant | Grade II listed building. Mid-18th-century, former house, now a restaurant. | SK 15249 75712 | | 26 | HER 14169 | Congregational Chapel, Park Rd | Built in 1883. Gothic style. | SK 1509 7571 | | 27 | NHLFE 400374 | Outbuilding to the NE of Foxelowe House | Grade II listed building. Mid-18th-century farm outbuilding. | SK 15051 75703 | | 28 | NHLFE 400350 | The Old Bull’s Head | Grade II listed building. early 19th-century house incorporating earlier range to rear. | SK 15229 75696 | | 29 | HER 14120 | Cruck barn, Commercial Rd | Remains of a cruck barn. | SK 1529 7569 | | 30 | NHLFE 400351 | Building to the SW of, and adjoin, the Old Bull’s Head | Grade II listed building. Dated 1836, but with earlier core. | SK 15220 75693 | | 31 | HER 14168 | Congregational Chapel, Park Rd | Shown on 1883 OS map. Used as a Sunday School by 1900. | SK 1506 7569 | | 32 | NHLFE 400373 | Foxelowe House, gate piers and boundary walls | Grade II listed building. Mid-18th-century, with 19th-century remodelling. | SK 15030 75692 | | 33 | NHLFE 400338 | Markygate House | Grade II listed building. Built in 17th century, possibly with earlier core. | SK 15215 75682 | | 34 | HER 14128 | Site of Summer Cross | Medieval or post-medieval wayside cross. No surviving remains. | SK 1475 7559 | | 35 | HER 14178 | Summer Cross Factory | Possibly originated as ‘Velvet Mill’, a silk mill, in the 19th century. Also called the ‘Rising Sun’. Closed in the 1930s. | SK 1496 7562 | | Asset no. | Source ID | Name | Summary | NGR | |----------|-----------|------|---------|-----| | 36 | HER 14161 | Wesleyan Methodist Chapel | Nineteenth-century chapel, Fountain Square. Shown on 1883 OS map. | SK 1509 7558 | | 37 | HER 14180 | Lawson Cottage and Lodge | Probably late 16th- or early 17th-century in date. Enlarged and remodelled with lodge in early 19th century. | SK 1515 7556 | | 38 | NHLFE 400352 | Hardy House, Hardy Lane | Grade II listed building. Built c.1750, with later remodelling. | SK 15041 75556 | | 39 | HER 14172 | Roman Catholic Chapel, Queen St | Built in 1832 and endowed by the Duke of Norfolk. | SK 1516 7548 | | 40 | HER 14176 | Red Butts Lead Mine | Well-preserved post-medieval hillocks, gin circle, dressing floor, ore-dressing pit and water storage pond. | SK 1456 7537 | | 41 | HER 14123 | ?Barrow, Great Low | Suggested as site of a barrow in 19th century, due to place-name element ‘low’. Named ‘Great Green Low’ on 1841 tithe map. No evidence of barrow. | SK 157 753 | | 42 | HER 14151 | Pinfold, Gordon Road | Constructed in 1748 following complaints of cattle trespassing in churchyard. Shown on 1883 OS map. | SK 1520 7516 | | 43 | HER 9411 | Earthworks 47m SW of Curzon Farm | Undated earthwork banks among post-medieval quarry pits. | SK 1625 7507 | | 44 | HER 14110 | Horseshoe enclosure – possible location | Possible location of degraded horseshoe enclosure, although appears to have been located in error. | SK 1415 7485 | | 45 | HER 14116 | Remains of Butterton Cross | Possibly medieval/post-medieval wayside cross, built into dry stone wall on Meadow Lane. | SK 1485 7483 | | 46 | HER 9415 | Chert implements, Litton Dale | Five undated, utilised pieces of chert and several natural or waste pieces. Found in ploughsoil in 1970. | SK 160 748 | | 47 | HER 14162 | ?Barrow, Nay Low | Possible barrow site suggested through place-name evidence. No sign of barrow. Mounds on site relate to industrial activity. | SK 142 745 | | 48 | HER 14104 | Stone axe, west of Meadow Lane | Polished stone axe found in rubble filling of a dry stone wall. Now in Sheffield Museum. | SK 1448 7456 | | 49 | HER 14136 | Meadow Farm, Tideswell | Farm and outbuildings. Built in 18th or early 19th century, with later additions. | SK 1485 7439 | | 50 | HER 14106 | Linear earthwork, Tideswell Dale | Possible linear bank and ditch running west towards Meadow Farm. Identified in 1970s, but not found in 2003 survey. | SK 152 742 | | 51 | HER 9437 | Quarrying – trial level? | Possible trial quarries dug and a level platform prepared. Identification is tenuous and unconfirmed. | SK 1543 7415 | | 52 | HER 9436 | Quarries, Long Meadow Lane | Small features, dug for wall-building material or limestone for a lime kiln. Two are backfilled with rubble; the eastern feature may be a natural hollow. | SK 1576 7406 |